The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of a criminal case for non-cognizable offence under Section 506 of IPC can be quashed if the ingredients constituting the offence are not made out, and it is deemed as an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

K.Somashekar, J. - In this petition, the petitioners who are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking to set-aside the order passed by the IX ACMM, Bangalore in Cr.No.308/2016 dated 24.11.2016 permitting to register criminal case for non-cognizable offence against the petitioners and consequently, to quash the registration of FIR in Cr.No.308/2016 of Jnanabharathi Police for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who is appearing through video conferencing and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State who is physically present before the Court. Counsel for Respondent No.2 has not come forward to address his arguments though the matter stands posted for final hearing.

3. The second respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent Jnanabharathi Police alleging that he is the owner of site bearing No.2279 comprised out of Sy.No.3/4 of Gidadakonenahalli village formed by the D Group Employees Association. It is further averred in the complaint that the petitioners came near the site and claimed that they are the owners of the site and threatened the second respondent with dire consequences.

4. Based upon the complaint reported by the second respondent who is a defacto complainant, the Police Inspector of Jnanabharathi Police Station submitted a requisition in NCR No.257/2016 before the IX ACMM, Bangalore city to register the case for non-cognizable offence and permission to investigate the case. The Court below vide order dated 24.11.2016 permitted the respondent police to register the case and to investigate the offence. In compliance of the said order, the first respondent police registered the case in Crime No.308/2016 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court and consequent registering of the case by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.308/2016, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to set-aside the order passed by the trial Court and for quashing of Crime No.308/2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the elements of the complaint filed by the second respondent herein. He contends that without there being any ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 506 of IPC, the crime against the petitioners has been registered by the first respondent police. Prima-facie no case has been made out against the petitioners. In fact, the daughter of the first petitioner who happened to be the wife of the second petitioner, purchased the site through a registered sale deed and they have been in possession of the property. When such being the case, the second respondent attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the property. The second respondent had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the said property against the daughter of the first petitioner namely Smt.Anjana Devi and 22 others in O.S.No.5599/2011. However, the said suit came to be decreed in favour of plaintiff/second respondent herein, the copy of which judgment is produced as Annexure-C to this petition for the purpose of perusal. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Smt.Anjana Devi preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA No.1254/2016. The second respondent herein has entered appearance as a Caveator in the said appeal. This Court has issued an interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo as on that date over the suit schedule property till further orders. The appeal is pending adjudication.

6. The second limb of the arguments advanced by the petitioners counsel is that since no cognizable offences are alleged, the first respondent sought for the permission from the IX ACMM, Bangalore City to proceed with the investigation and the Court below has erred in permitting the first respondent to register the case against the petitioners. Consequently, the first respondent only with an intention to harass the